Tall Cyclists - another post your ride here thread
#51
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: take your time, enjoy the scenery, it will be there when you get to it
Posts: 7,281
Bikes: 07 IRO BFGB fixed-gear, 07 Pedal Force RS
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I thought everybody understood that
But my contention is that frames can be designed to fit comfortably and continue to offer the traditional geometries, shapes, and proportions and NOT look like they just threw a bunch more tubing at it to make it a larger frame. It's as if sometimes they take the easy road and just start at the BB and the bottom of the headtube and move up from those points to make a "bigger" bike, not the answer.
But my contention is that frames can be designed to fit comfortably and continue to offer the traditional geometries, shapes, and proportions and NOT look like they just threw a bunch more tubing at it to make it a larger frame. It's as if sometimes they take the easy road and just start at the BB and the bottom of the headtube and move up from those points to make a "bigger" bike, not the answer.
What would you suggest the builder(Doug "Curtlo" Curtiss) do?
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,154
Bikes: (2) 2004 Trek 1500, Team Colors:2004 Cannondale Ironman w/ Renn and Zipp: 2005 Kestrel Talon SL: 2001 GT Agressor: 2001 Schwinn Moab: 2001 Specialized S-Works M4 Festina Team Bike: 2002 Pinarello Prince: 1980 Schwinn Voyageur 11.8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
sometimes that is what fits(that's what I need, very long legs/short torso). If the TT is any longer than 59cm(+ a 10cm stem) I'm unable to reach the hoods, but my leg length requires at least a 65cm seat tube.
What would you suggest the builder(Doug "Curtlo" Curtiss) do?
What would you suggest the builder(Doug "Curtlo" Curtiss) do?
Unfortunately, from a design standpoint, I hate to say it but it appears more variety in components would help, but I'm definitely NOT a fan of that as I'm always a proponent of using fewer numbers of items to fit a wider range of uses. However, in this case it could start with utilizing 650c wheels again for smaller bikes, and maybe larger than 700c wheels for the largest frame sizes, longer forks (and not just the steerer tubes), I don't know, just thinking out loud...
#54
Voice of the Industry
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
No need to move on frame size if you can tune your existing frame.
#55
Senior Member
First thing I would do is tilt the bars up a few degrees so the drops are at least horizontal to the ground if not a couple of degree down. I bet that would make a HUGE difference.
__________________
BMC Roadmachine
Kona Jake the Snake
BMC Roadmachine
Kona Jake the Snake
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: SW Wisconsin
Posts: 194
Bikes: 2005 Scattante R-550,Cannondale tandem,Raleigh Pre, Fuji Discovery
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
60cm Habanero Team with a 120 Specialized stem currently angled down more than in photo.
I'm 6'3" inseam 35".
I'm 6'3" inseam 35".
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,154
Bikes: (2) 2004 Trek 1500, Team Colors:2004 Cannondale Ironman w/ Renn and Zipp: 2005 Kestrel Talon SL: 2001 GT Agressor: 2001 Schwinn Moab: 2001 Specialized S-Works M4 Festina Team Bike: 2002 Pinarello Prince: 1980 Schwinn Voyageur 11.8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The head tube length between your two bikes is about the same. Your Flyte is killing your neck because you have a negative rise stem on it. Flip the stem or better yet but a 10-17 deg riser stem on it and your neck issues will be gone. Also you have your bars rotated down on your Flyte. Aside from slight difference in top tube there is no reason why you can't make both bikes fit the same. You don't need another frame.
No need to move on frame size if you can tune your existing frame.
No need to move on frame size if you can tune your existing frame.
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,760
Bikes: Steelman eurocross, Surly CrossCheck, IRO Rob Roy...
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'm 6'1" so don't fall into the "tall" category, but I tend to have a lot of post showing because of my riding style. I'm also very thin (165) so I look taller.
#59
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: take your time, enjoy the scenery, it will be there when you get to it
Posts: 7,281
Bikes: 07 IRO BFGB fixed-gear, 07 Pedal Force RS
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I went back to your original post/picture and took a look and I thought WHY so much seatpost on an already large frame, but then realized you have a (somewhat) unique set of dimensions in your height/inseam ratio. Your PF frame looks proportional, but that Storck (A bike and designer which I have a huge amount of admiration for) just looks ridiculously out of sorts.
Unfortunately, from a design standpoint, I hate to say it but it appears more variety in components would help, but I'm definitely NOT a fan of that as I'm always a proponent of using fewer numbers of items to fit a wider range of uses. However, in this case it could start with utilizing 650c wheels again for smaller bikes, and maybe larger than 700c wheels for the largest frame sizes, longer forks (and not just the steerer tubes), I don't know, just thinking out loud...
Unfortunately, from a design standpoint, I hate to say it but it appears more variety in components would help, but I'm definitely NOT a fan of that as I'm always a proponent of using fewer numbers of items to fit a wider range of uses. However, in this case it could start with utilizing 650c wheels again for smaller bikes, and maybe larger than 700c wheels for the largest frame sizes, longer forks (and not just the steerer tubes), I don't know, just thinking out loud...
I wish a 58cm bike would fit me, but no chance. I'd love to own a bike like your Pinarello, it looks like a bike should.
BTW, the Storck was a dream to ride. .
#60
B(.)(.)BS
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 826
Bikes: My bicycles?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Sorry, but this has to be the ugliest bike picture thread ever.
Carry on.
EDIT: Though I have to say that orange Habanero is seksi.
Carry on.
EDIT: Though I have to say that orange Habanero is seksi.
Last edited by badfishgood; 04-17-08 at 01:49 PM.
#64
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 511
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I have others, but the colnago is 64cm and the pinarello is 61cm. I am 195cm tall.
hard to tell in the photo, but the colnago has about 15cm saddle to bar drop and a 14cm stem (both bikes have 14cm stems & 180mm cranks).
#65
not a role model
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,659
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I know my Curtlo is going to look a little odd in most people's eyes, but what looks worse, a normal sized frame with a long post + riser stem(with loads of spacers) or a tall frame with a level TT, and a -17 stem with 15mm of spacers?I think the tall, proper-fitting frameset will look a lot better.
#67
Voice of the Industry
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
You may think it looks riduculous but almost a necessity for a tall rider with short torso who is all legs who doesn't want to pay for a custom frame. My personal view is its almost a jump ball aesthetically. Long head tubes aren't exactly elegant. Most bikes look best around 55-57 or so with a 150mm head tube which doesn't work for a 36 inch inseam.
#68
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: take your time, enjoy the scenery, it will be there when you get to it
Posts: 7,281
Bikes: 07 IRO BFGB fixed-gear, 07 Pedal Force RS
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
You may think it looks riduculous but almost a necessity for a tall rider with short torso who is all legs who doesn't want to pay for a custom frame. My personal view is its almost a jump ball aesthetically. Long head tubes aren't exactly elegant. Most bikes look best around 55-57 or so with a 150mm head tube which doesn't work for a 36 inch inseam.
While a long head tube may not look elegant, at least it's not going to be dangerous or flexy(like it would be with a stack of spacers)..
#70
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 663
Bikes: 2007 Trek 1500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#71
Voice of the Industry
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
The thing about BF that is almost universal are the sweeping stereotypes. A stack of spacers being dangerous or flexy is only one misconception. The most notable misconception that comes up all the time here is a short stem will make a bicycle handling more nervous. Honorable mention? Bicycles should be sized by top tube. Generalization is convenient for those that don't see the whole picture.
Most that don't race competitively don't like a 6 inch bar drop. If that is the case, then the beautiful Colnago below gets discarded for a tall rider or a longer fork steerer and spacers and/or a riser stem is required to get the bars up within a couple inches of the saddle.
Last edited by Campag4life; 04-18-08 at 06:14 AM.
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,410
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The head tube length between your two bikes is about the same. Your Flyte is killing your neck because you have a negative rise stem on it. Flip the stem or better yet but a 10-17 deg riser stem on it and your neck issues will be gone. Also you have your bars rotated down on your Flyte. Aside from slight difference in top tube there is no reason why you can't make both bikes fit the same. You don't need another frame.
No need to move on frame size if you can tune your existing frame.
No need to move on frame size if you can tune your existing frame.
Thanks again though for the help!
#73
Voice of the Industry
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
Thanks for the advice-The horrible position its in in that picture is just me playing with it. Here's my thoughts on a larger frame-As you can see it's got a huge stack of spacer already, it'd be nice to lose some. The stem on there is a 130, and it kills my handling. I first put the 130 on, and I thought I was riding a different bike. I've since flipped the stem and been playing with all sorts of bar positions, and I've got it sort of comfortable. But between the length of the stem, and the jarring ride that frame seems to provide (or else it's the crap roads out here, probably a bit of both) I may still be looking.
Thanks again though for the help!
Thanks again though for the help!
Cheers.
#74
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Well here's a question wrt this discussion then: I'm considering a comparitively inexpensive custom frame because I'm just outside of standard sizes and fitting, and the bike that's most comfortable for me is one with a 61cm tt, 50-60mm of spacers, a flipped up 130mm stem and hands comfy in the ends of the bullhorns.
My goal in this is to be able to have a full-fledged road bike that a) fits me but also b) doesn't force me to simply max out every dimension to sort of have a rideable bike, but be able to have the normal adjustability that normal sized people have (raising/lowering/flipping stems, changing stem length, changing between bars with different reach and drop) for when I get fitter or to accomodate different riding styles.
Part of this is the assumption that a really long high stem is not ideal for handling or comfort and is possibly not the safest when you're big - I'm far enough back over the rear wheel that with a big saddle-bar drop, I can still very easily pop up the front wheel in bumpy or quickly rolling terrain, and I can flex my bars and stem easily (though not my steer tube, that I've noticed, which is part of an all steel fork).
Is this moot in terms of handling and safety? If I had say 400mm of post and 100mm of spacers on a fork with a 150 stem on smaller frame, is that essentially as safe and secure as if I had an appropriate sized frame and "normal" component setup?
My goal in this is to be able to have a full-fledged road bike that a) fits me but also b) doesn't force me to simply max out every dimension to sort of have a rideable bike, but be able to have the normal adjustability that normal sized people have (raising/lowering/flipping stems, changing stem length, changing between bars with different reach and drop) for when I get fitter or to accomodate different riding styles.
Part of this is the assumption that a really long high stem is not ideal for handling or comfort and is possibly not the safest when you're big - I'm far enough back over the rear wheel that with a big saddle-bar drop, I can still very easily pop up the front wheel in bumpy or quickly rolling terrain, and I can flex my bars and stem easily (though not my steer tube, that I've noticed, which is part of an all steel fork).
Is this moot in terms of handling and safety? If I had say 400mm of post and 100mm of spacers on a fork with a 150 stem on smaller frame, is that essentially as safe and secure as if I had an appropriate sized frame and "normal" component setup?
#75
not a role model
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,659
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
You may think it looks riduculous but almost a necessity for a tall rider with short torso who is all legs who doesn't want to pay for a custom frame. My personal view is its almost a jump ball aesthetically. Long head tubes aren't exactly elegant. Most bikes look best around 55-57 or so with a 150mm head tube which doesn't work for a 36 inch inseam.
I can't really relate. My ideal bike fits me correctly, and if that means my correctly sized bike is inelegant as my size 14 shoe... well, I couldn't care less.
I'm not 100% sure that mid-sized bikes REALLY look better. I think it's just what we see the most of and has become the standard in our minds.